Ugly Woman Claims To Be Baby Stolen By Dingo

August 29th, 2005 | by Mike |

25 years ago, a baby mysteriously vanished from a campsite in Alice Springs, Australia. The case got world-wide media attention, and sparked many jokes, after the mother claimed that her baby was stolen by Dingos. The missing baby’s parents were later convicted of murder and sentenced to prison until 1998 when they were released and their story (“The Dingos ate my baby!”) accepted.

Now, one Erin Horsburgh has stepped forward with the claim that she was that young baby, named Azaria Chamberlain. Horsburgh, or Chamberlain, claims that, although she was taken by Dingos, she was not killed, but just beaten severely with the ugly stick. Her proof? Flashbacks to when she was 9 weeks old, being taken by Dingos and a scar on her arm.

The Alice Springs police have labeled her a “Nut Job” and told her to go away, while trying their best not to look directly at her face.

Click after the jump so see the “grown up Azaria Chamberlain”.


Links: Police reject Azaria claims

  1. 26 Responses to “Ugly Woman Claims To Be Baby Stolen By Dingo”

  2. By anonymous on Sep 4, 2005 | Reply

    Okay, so first off, do you actually believe that a dingo killed Lindy Chamberlain’s baby? The High Court didn’t believe that. No dingo has ever killed a baby ever in the 200 year history of Australian settlement. No dingo was found that was capable of this – and we’d be looking at a rabid beast of a dingo. Dingoes are smaller than regular pet dogs, and far less viscious – they have been made virtually extinct thanks to attacks by dogs. So what makes us think that a harmless dingo could have killed someone’s baby when they don’t even attack people usually?

    The reason why Lindy Chamberlain got excused was not because there was proof that the dingo had killed her baby – it was just because there was a tiny doubt that she might not have been the murderer. This doubt was not just because of the dingo killed the baby angle, but there was also the chance that someone else killed the baby. Or that a dingo had taken the baby (but not killed it) and someone else had killed her. Or that the baby Azaria was still alive.

    This story, that Erin Horsburgh is producing now, was actually presented as one of 5 main theories of what happened, when the initial investigation took place in 1980. This one was ridiculed primarily because it was presented by aborigines, who nobody took seriously.

    So what is going to happen if a DNA test is done? It’ll either prove that this woman is insane, or else it will prove that she is Azaria. So what is the harm in knowing for sure?

    There can be no doubt that this is not a publicity stunt. She is getting nothing out of it. If she isn’t Azaria, it can be proved in days, and she’ll be the laughing stock of the whole country. If she is asking for money, well, nobody is going to give her any unless she is Azaria.

    She definitely thinks she is Azaria. There can be no doubt about that. Whether she is or not we can actually prove. So let’s stop the speculation and just go ahead and do the DNA test.

    If you refuse to let one happen, then you’re really helping to cover things up. Why do it? Because you are stupid enough to believe that a dingo could have killed the baby? Or just because you would rather that valuable tax dollars don’t get wasted trying to prove that something is true?

    I’ll bet you that she is Azaria. It’s very likely. Far more likely than the crazy story that a dingo killed the baby. If she isn’t Azaria, then I think that Lindy should go back to jail.

  3. By anonymous on Sep 4, 2005 | Reply

    Okay, so first off, do you actually believe that a dingo killed Lindy Chamberlain’s baby? The High Court didn’t believe that. No dingo has ever killed a baby ever in the 200 year history of Australian settlement. No dingo was found that was capable of this – and we’d be looking at a rabid beast of a dingo. Dingoes are smaller than regular pet dogs, and far less viscious – they have been made virtually extinct thanks to attacks by dogs. So what makes us think that a harmless dingo could have killed someone’s baby when they don’t even attack people usually?

    The reason why Lindy Chamberlain got excused was not because there was proof that the dingo had killed her baby – it was just because there was a tiny doubt that she might not have been the murderer. This doubt was not just because of the dingo killed the baby angle, but there was also the chance that someone else killed the baby. Or that a dingo had taken the baby (but not killed it) and someone else had killed her. Or that the baby Azaria was still alive.

    This story, that Erin Horsburgh is producing now, was actually presented as one of 5 main theories of what happened, when the initial investigation took place in 1980. This one was ridiculed primarily because it was presented by aborigines, who nobody took seriously.

    So what is going to happen if a DNA test is done? It’ll either prove that this woman is insane, or else it will prove that she is Azaria. So what is the harm in knowing for sure?

    There can be no doubt that this is not a publicity stunt. She is getting nothing out of it. If she isn’t Azaria, it can be proved in days, and she’ll be the laughing stock of the whole country. If she is asking for money, well, nobody is going to give her any unless she is Azaria.

    She definitely thinks she is Azaria. There can be no doubt about that. Whether she is or not we can actually prove. So let’s stop the speculation and just go ahead and do the DNA test.

    If you refuse to let one happen, then you’re really helping to cover things up. Why do it? Because you are stupid enough to believe that a dingo could have killed the baby? Or just because you would rather that valuable tax dollars don’t get wasted trying to prove that something is true?

    I’ll bet you that she is Azaria. It’s very likely. Far more likely than the crazy story that a dingo killed the baby. If she isn’t Azaria, then I think that Lindy should go back to jail.

  4. By Mike on Sep 4, 2005 | Reply

    Yikes.

    I was just reporting what the news story I linked to said. I really don’t know much more about it than that. Hell, to be honest with you, I just thought that the picture of the lady was funny.

    All good points you have though!

  5. By Mike on Sep 4, 2005 | Reply

    Yikes.

    I was just reporting what the news story I linked to said. I really don’t know much more about it than that. Hell, to be honest with you, I just thought that the picture of the lady was funny.

    All good points you have though!

  6. By anonymous on Sep 5, 2005 | Reply

    A dingo stole my baby?
    Lmao….thought i had heard it all until this Erin chick claimed she is Azaria Chamberlain.
    If she had flashbacks, why did she wait till now to contact the police about them?
    Another thing is she looks nothing like the chamberlains,but (forgive me for being sarcastic here) maybe the dingo took to her face as well…Ha ha ha
    All in all, my opinion is we will never find the truth about Azaria Chamberlain,although i have to agree with anonymous on september 4 @ 4.09 am.
    Lindy needs to go back to jail, as its a lot more possible for her to have killed that child than a dingo stealing her baby!

  7. By anonymous on Sep 5, 2005 | Reply

    A dingo stole my baby?
    Lmao….thought i had heard it all until this Erin chick claimed she is Azaria Chamberlain.
    If she had flashbacks, why did she wait till now to contact the police about them?
    Another thing is she looks nothing like the chamberlains,but (forgive me for being sarcastic here) maybe the dingo took to her face as well…Ha ha ha
    All in all, my opinion is we will never find the truth about Azaria Chamberlain,although i have to agree with anonymous on september 4 @ 4.09 am.
    Lindy needs to go back to jail, as its a lot more possible for her to have killed that child than a dingo stealing her baby!

  8. By erin on Oct 21, 2005 | Reply

    what give you the rigth to be a f— asshold ,you will be in deper s— if you make lagalis like that

  9. By erin on Oct 21, 2005 | Reply

    what give you the rigth to be a f— asshold ,you will be in deper s— if you make lagalis like that

  10. By Mike on Oct 21, 2005 | Reply

    Who’s a what now?

  11. By Mike on Oct 21, 2005 | Reply

    Who’s a what now?

  12. By danielcole on Oct 26, 2005 | Reply

    erin types like she was raised by dingos.
    but not smart dingos. you know, the slow ones that nobody feels comfortable talking about.

  13. By danielcole on Oct 26, 2005 | Reply

    erin types like she was raised by dingos.
    but not smart dingos. you know, the slow ones that nobody feels comfortable talking about.

  14. By leperboy on Nov 18, 2005 | Reply

    Posted by Anonymous:
    “Dingoes are smaller than regular pet dogs, and far less viscious”

    Bull. Fucking. Shit.

  15. By leperboy on Nov 18, 2005 | Reply

    Posted by Anonymous:
    “Dingoes are smaller than regular pet dogs, and far less viscious”

    Bull. Fucking. Shit.

  16. By aussie14 on Dec 13, 2005 | Reply

    ‘Anonymous’ your ignorance is f**king astounding. Dingoes are the size of German Shepards (probably bigger actually) and there has been numerous attacks on children – and sometimes adults – over the years.

  17. By aussie14 on Dec 13, 2005 | Reply

    ‘Anonymous’ your ignorance is f**king astounding. Dingoes are the size of German Shepards (probably bigger actually) and there has been numerous attacks on children – and sometimes adults – over the years.

  18. By julie on Apr 15, 2008 | Reply

    Oh my god, your ignorance truly is astounding. Have any of you read the facts of the case.
    There was no evidence to suggest that Lindy had killed here baby. Time wise it would have been impossible unless she had done it infront of witnesses.

  19. By julie on Apr 15, 2008 | Reply

    Oh my god, your ignorance truly is astounding. Have any of you read the facts of the case.
    There was no evidence to suggest that Lindy had killed here baby. Time wise it would have been impossible unless she had done it infront of witnesses.

  20. By mikeflynn on Apr 17, 2008 | Reply

    God Julie, you sound so hot!

  21. By Mike on Apr 17, 2008 | Reply

    God Julie, you sound so hot!

  22. By NC on Jul 27, 2008 | Reply

    I watched the movie the other night and have spent most of yesterday and today reading the court transcripts, newspaper articles, blogs, comments and websites of the Chamberlains…. and mentions all over the net.

    What confuses me is if Erin Horsburgh really believes that she is Lindy’s child and the aborigines her foster parents collaborate the story, then why not let her do the DNA test?

    I know Lindy must have put all of this behind her ….. but if I REALLY TRULY believed my daughter had been taken by wild dingos, I would have handed over a pint of blood for testing at the first indication that my child could possibly still be alive. I would have demanded that the police test the bloody baby clothes as well – or since Lindy is saying that there are already DNA tests – to use those!

    I have also read messages on a couple boards that appear to be from Erin Horsburgh – no one seems to be very nice to her and the name calling is absurd. Compassion is certainly lacking! It also appears on the message boards (but there is no way to be certain) that Lindy herself is joining in on the bashing! Of course, anyone could be doing it…. and it may or may not be Erin…. and the horrible English skills some sort of sick joke.

    Anyway…… think about it. If you thought your baby was taken off into the woods by dingos and then 25 years later a woman shows up with scars, that has no recollection of her past, was adopted in weird circumstances… and told that she was a baby found by aborigines that took her from the den of dingos…… from the exact place and time your baby came up missing ….. wouldn’t you demand a test? I sure as hell would. Especially when 50% of Aussies still think she is guilty of killing her baby…..

    interesting…..

  23. By NC on Jul 27, 2008 | Reply

    I watched the movie the other night and have spent most of yesterday and today reading the court transcripts, newspaper articles, blogs, comments and websites of the Chamberlains…. and mentions all over the net.

    What confuses me is if Erin Horsburgh really believes that she is Lindy’s child and the aborigines & her foster parents collaborate the story, then why not let her do the DNA test?

    I know Lindy must have put all of this behind her ….. but if I REALLY & TRULY believed my daughter had been taken by wild dingos, I would have handed over a pint of blood for testing at the first indication that my child could possibly still be alive. I would have demanded that the police test the bloody baby clothes as well – or since Lindy is saying that there are already DNA tests – to use those!

    I have also read messages on a couple boards that appear to be from Erin Horsburgh – no one seems to be very nice to her and the name calling is absurd. Compassion is certainly lacking! It also appears on the message boards (but there is no way to be certain) that Lindy herself is joining in on the bashing! Of course, anyone could be doing it…. and it may or may not be Erin…. and the horrible English skills some sort of sick joke.

    Anyway…… think about it. If you thought your baby was taken off into the woods by dingos and then 25 years later a woman shows up with scars, that has no recollection of her past, was adopted in weird circumstances… and told that she was a baby found by aborigines that took her from the den of dingos…… from the exact place and time your baby came up missing ….. wouldn’t you demand a test? I sure as hell would. Especially when 50% of Aussies still think she is guilty of killing her baby…..

    interesting…..

  24. By Mitchfuller31 on Jul 7, 2010 | Reply

    I strongly agree with you there. Looking through all the evidence given in the trial on this case i think that this woman who claims to be Azaria is Azaria… She should demand a DNA test. The only reason why the police do not want to do the DNA test because it may prove the police and the legal system stupid if the DNA proves that Erin is Azaria. Do not forget that a small handprint was found on Azaria jump suit when found and this hand print was not that of Lindy Chamberlain or any other people from that unfortunate night. I think it was of an aboriginal person who found Azaria alive and rescued her hence the prints on the jumpsuit. I looked at the picture of Erin and i think there is a resembelence to Lindy when she was younger. All the other children have blond straight hair just like Erin has. I think we should give this poor girl a break and stop bashing her.. She should demand a DNA test to prove her claim. Erin of you are reading this please demand a test so you can prove who you are.

  25. By Cascadewaters on Sep 16, 2011 | Reply

    Erin probably is Azaria….what a great tragedy that nobody takes herĀ  seriously.

  26. By Beth on Jan 10, 2012 | Reply

    there wasn’t much evidence that she didn’t either – the case was mishandled from the very beginning

  27. By Reileigh on Jan 10, 2012 | Reply

    that’s just what i’ve been thinking – if Lindy is so sure the baby was carried off you’d think she would jump at the chance that her daughter is alive; it raises suspicion in my mind that she knows something about the body that we don’t know (my own opinion)

You must be logged in to post a comment.